Act Locally » July 6, 2005

Get Used to It

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Beijing–Demands that corporate America bolt its doors in the wake of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s (CNOOC’s) unsolicited offer to purchase the energy giant Unocal Corp. are being closely watched here. Many Chinese say the U.S. reaction will send an irrefutable message about whether Washington is more interested in its commitment to free trade or in containing the growing might of China, a country President Bush has labeled a “strategic competitor.”

“Right now CNOOC is only following the rules of free trade,” says Han Xiaoping, senior vice president of the Falcon Pioneer Technology Company Ltd, an energy research firm in Beijing. “If the deal is not allowed, it sends a message to Chinese companies and perhaps they might start looking for other ways, other markets to do business with.”

CNOOC’s $18.5 billion all-cash offer for the El Segundo, Calif.-based Unocal ups a friendly $16.6 billion stock bid from San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron Corp. It is the largest international purchase any Chinese firm has undertaken to date, and marks the first time a Chinese firm has entered into an international bidding war with an American company.

CNOOC’s move comes close at the heels of Chinese computer-maker Lenovo’s $1.75 billion purchase of IBM’s PC unit and is expected to be followed by Chinese appliance maker Haier’s $2.25 billion offer for Maytag Corporation. Together, the deals reveal the determination with which Chinese companies backed by the Chinese government are following what they call a “go out” strategy–a plan to use China’s massive foreign exchange reserves of more than $650 billion to acquire leading companies and brands in several key industries.

That’s proving “unsettling and disruptive” for many U.S. leaders and corporations, says James Brock, an independent advisor to the energy industry in Beijing. “But they’d better learn to deal with this sort of thing because it is going to keep happening,” he said. “Pick any product, and the Chinese are going to change the market for it.”

Until recently, Chinese firms were seen merely as cheap manufacturers, and the Chinese government invested most of its cash in low-yielding U.S. government treasury securities. But now the best Chinese firms are moving rapidly up the value chain, and local state-owned banks are eschewing the measly 4 percent return they earn on U.S. T-bills to bankroll their dreams of global expansion.

Jing Huang, a senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, says CNOOC’s bid for Unocal is part of China’s attempt to move into the global economy. “China’s ‘go out’ policy is part of the strategy to integrate it into the world,” Huang says.

But Brock says the Chinese government, which owns 70.6 percent of CNOOC, had endorsed the ambitious bid for even larger strategic interests, such as Beijing’s desire to acquire energy fields at a time of uncertain energy supplies and diminishing energy stocks.

China is now the world’s largest energy consumer after the United States, burning the equivalent of 1.5 billion tons of oil this year. Even conservative estimates expect this figure to double over the next decade. Over the next year alone, China will bring online new power plants that will produce about 80 gigawatts of electricity, more than the entire power capacity of the United Kingdom.

“If the rate of growth continues there just won’t be enough [traditional energy sources] in the world for China,” says Han.

That’s not entirely a bad thing, says Brock, because diminishing supplies and rising prices will force nations to embrace other forms of potentially cleaner fuels and renewable energies. But until that happens, Chinese companies are desperately trying “to replace the energy supplies they’ve used up with reliable sources of new reserves,” Brock says.

CNOOC executives estimate that the Unocal purchase will more than double CNOOC’s current oil and gas production, and increase its reserves by 4 billion barrels of standard oil. With more than 85 percent of these combined reserves located in China and nearby Asian countries such as Indonesia and Myanmar, the merger makes sense on a strictly commercial basis.

But the battle for the control of energy resources also has significant political dimensions. Most countries guard their energy industry from foreign or unwanted buyers. China itself does not allow foreign investors to own more than 50 percent of most oil and natural gas-related companies, though it does allow foreign firms full ownership of energy exploration ventures. In fact, it is paying for Unocal in cash instead of stock because the Chinese government does not want to dilute its own holding in CNOOC.

Voices have already been raised in the United States against allowing a state-owned Chinese entity to control Unocal, which has been closely involved with the planned construction of controversial pipelines in Afghanistan and Myanmar. House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) is demanding an investigation into the deal.

To soften such critics, CNOOC, whose savvy U.S.-educated CEO Fu Chengyu has a record of successfully navigating rocky waters, has said the company will retain its entire U.S. staff and that all the existing oil and gas Unocal sells in the United States will continue to be sold there and not diverted to China. The company also stated that it would be willing to sell Unocal’s North American assets to U.S. companies, and consider “special management arrangements” for its pipeline projects.

Han says this indicates CNOOC does not want to challenge sensitive U.S. interests, and that its interest in Unocal is partly driven by China’s goal of increasing the share of natural gas in its energy mix from 3 percent to 10 percent, mostly to curb pollution.

Unocal has Asia’s largest stores of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which CNOOC needs for the new LNG terminals it is building along China’s coastline. Unocal also owns specialized deep water drilling technology that CNOOC needs to explore its own gas reserves.

“There are places in China that are like scenes out of a Mad Max movie,” Brock said, as smog obscured the normally panoramic view of Beijing from his 21st floor office. “In the short run, the move to gas is essential but in the longer run there has to be a fuller reconsideration in China, and indeed the world, of the entire energy system.”

Jack Barnes is an ex-Trotskyist who published many books and pamphlets years ago with Pathfinder Press, a Trotskyist publisher based in London and New York. He has since repudiated his old political views and has become a Libertarian.Posted by cabdriverinchicago on 2005-08-17 10:26:15

Hi,Y'all!
Amazing! The ITT board puts in a security program to screen out the FREEPERS and they all disappear!Cowards.A bunch of little men with little political views who refuse to identify themselves when metal strikes metal. Though a bit late,this was definitely needed.Thank you,ITT!
By the way,LAST WORD,You right wing troll freepers! LAST WORD!Go back to pestering Al Franken with your myrmidonic reactionary rhetoric!
With that out of the way...Has anybody else noticed that our right-wing media has made VERY little mention of this development?Why? Might they be afraid to mention that a big player has stepped into the game?Someone who understands war far better than us and will play the game to the hilt if need be?We thundered into Iraq,and now we will whimper out,especially if "free enterprise"steps in and our conquering claim is bought out from under us.Hope this farce of a war was worth it.
Jack,where are you?It's been so long since I've been called a "TROT BOOB",or heard anyone make references to sixty year old philosophies of communism.or heard anyone speakwell of AYN RAND.Afraid to speak?That's what I thought.Posted by wwoods on 2005-08-15 22:04:50

The CNOOC/UNOCAL issue is one of the biggest red herrings in American politics since the bogus justifications for the invasion of Iraq! The Chinese leadership may be dictatorial but they are reasonable. The UNOCAL purchase involves no real trust issues. The companies assets are not fungible and can be siezed by the government in an emergency. The Chinese operations in the US would be subject to domestic US law. There is no reason to think the Chinese want to do ill since they prosper through their lucreative business with the US and bear no hatred either toward the US or its people like the Saudis to whom we willingly give far more trust. If a war broke out their assets could be siezed along with the oil operations shut down. Obviously, the Chinese are in a far more vulnerable position than the US. Realizing this was probably part of the logic of their now $19 billion bid. China is not officially our enemy and should not be treated as a threat! They have obviously behaved better and respected international law more than the US has despite their appalling past human rights record.Posted by steve on 2005-07-18 07:37:59

Troubled in the Heartland,
I agree with you. I think it's a mistake to allow foreigners to buy strategic commercial interests in America. I don't like the BP has bought out other oil companies, and I think it would be a bigger mistake to sell to someone who definitely does not have our best interests at heart. I think America should do like Mexico and Thailand with real estate, you have to be a citizen to buy.
Steve can throw out all the economic data he wishes, I just know you don't lend your purse to someone who was hellbent on pillaging and destroying you only a decade or two ago.Posted by Margaret on 2005-07-17 14:11:17

Sun Tzu buys US T-bills. He also works in a refrigerator factory in Shanghai for under $10.00/week and no one listens to him any more!Posted by steve on 2005-07-17 11:28:12

"...those skilled at making the enemy move do so by creating a situation to which he must conform; they entice him with something he is certain to take, and with lures of ostensible profit they await him in strength."
"One able to make the enemy come of his own accord does so by offering him some advantage. And one able to prevent him from coming does so by hurting him.
When the enemy is at ease, be able to weary him; when well fed, starve him; when at rest, to make him move."
"When I wish to give battle, my enemy, even though protected by high walls and deep moats, cannot help but engage me, for I attack a position he must succour
When I wish I wish to avoid battle I may defend myself simply by drawing a line on the ground; the enemy will be unable to attack me because I divert him from going where he wishes."----Sun Tzu THE ART OF WARPosted by troubled in the heartland on 2005-07-17 11:18:12

First of all, the EU is reisisting excessive Chinese domination of its internal market for consumer goods, particularly textiles and clothing. Secondly, the enormous US market with over 300 million consumers and growing will never be taken for granted or viewed as expendable. The proportion of the $1.9 trillion in US treasury securities held outside the US is 60% held by six East Asian countries including Japan and China. Japan is by far the biggest holder as of the second quarter 2005 with $685 billion with China a somewhat distant second with $230 billion. Despite the rapid growth of East Asian holdings, their total share of US national debt is less than 15% with the Chinese share around 4%. The Chinese cannot cut their nose off to spite their face by destabilizing their biggest export market. The EU, I suspect, will grow more protectionist as they lose export markets to China and should this than effect the strength of the Euro, Chinese export markets in the EU would suffer. In a word, the Chinese today, like the Saudis in the 1970s and the Japanese in the 1980s, need somewhere to invest their dollar earnings and the US market is the best place due to the fact that such investment secures their export markets and increases yeilds on some of the most stable international financial instruments anywhere-US T-Bills! The Chinese will not use this as economic blackmail. Other investments elsewhere carry to much risk! In any case the Saudis own a much bigger share of the US economy than all of East Asia together and for the same reason the US powers that be aren't worried. If we are really concerned about foreign ownership of the country, let's stop running deficits that require foreign support. Our current mallaise, I fear, reflects the deeper contradictions of capitalist crisis whereby the paltry effective demand of the US working population must be fed by cheap foreign imports generated by the global consolidation of transnationalized productive capital in a new, more concentrated, international division of laborPosted by steve on 2005-07-17 11:16:10

As China cultivates markets in the EU, Latin America, Africa, and Asia the dependence on the voracious consumer spending of the US will disintegrate. That, combined with the increasingly limited buying power of the US working class are going to make the US market obsolete. There will be no need for China to hold their T-Bills. This vulnerability is recognized by both the Chinese and the US. Might it be suggested that the Chinese are now leveraging their advantage? Might it also be possible that along with this offer is some sort of quid pro quo? In effect, are the Chinese making us 'an offer we can't refuse'? Allow the deal and we won't sell just yet.
I suspect nothing will be done to stop this sale of UNOCAL. I also suspect there will continue to be more of the same until the US economy resembles the sucked out carcass of a fly in a spiders web on a hot summer's night in August.
Cheers--Posted by troubled in the heartland on 2005-07-17 09:43:24

The UNOCAL bid could also be deemed strategic if one posits that one of the main US motivations for invading and occupying Iraq is to eventually be in a position to control China's energy supply. To sell an American energy company the likes of UNOCAL to China would be working at cross purposes to say the very least if this were to be the case! Still, my heartland friend, I believe the global nature of capitalism to be the ultimate force to be the determining one. The more integrated we become with China the less we care how they get their energy or where they get it especially if it boosts their ability to continue supporting the US dollar through T-note purchases. If China's end use energy efficiency improves sufficiently so that her consumer durable goods sector is price competitive we will have another Japan to cope with in our domestic market. At that point the rise of China will truely be of global strategic significance but only to the extent that we consider her foreign market and capital flow dependance as well.Posted by steve on 2005-07-17 06:34:30

Americans are hypocritical in this matter only when they embrace the system of consolidation, and its return to nineteenth century oligarchy, that has been occurring since the onset of the Reagan economic revolution. The dismantling of the anti-Trust legislation and the neutering of the SEC has had disastrous consequences on the domestic economy and has set the stage for what is occurring now---more of the same on an international level.
UNOCAL's assets are of great strategic value. That was the essence of John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation, testimony before Congress in the 1990's. This strategic value has long been recognized and the company's assets have long been coveted by entities here and abroad. Being under constant hostile takeover threats, UNOCAL restructured its stock and bond offerings, making such a takeover nearly impossible. Short of an out right sale of the company, and the Justice Department maintaining an interest in upholding the existing anit-Trust laws, UNOCAL would remain intact.
An interesting question presents itself: Is Washington acting out of concern for security or is it really upset over the interruption in the reconsolidation of David Rockefeller's empire? How would Zbigniew Brzezinski chime in on this? Read his book, The Grand Chessboard.Posted by troubled in the Heartland on 2005-07-17 05:57:13

I really fail to see the actual strategic content of the recent Chinese energy moves especially given the fact that the Chinese industrial revolution is the most foreign dependant of all four major world industrial revolutions of the past century and a half! Most of UNOCAL's important oil and gas exploration is in SE Asia or the Caspian Basin close to China. It makes sense that China seek greater energy access and independance given the extent of the economic importance of that country and the fact that almost three-quarters of current energy needs are supplied by dirty and inefficient domestically mined coal which can't supply China's growing energy needs indefinitely. China's generous bid increased the stock value and hence the value of the company. China has promised to respect stockholders wishes, keep jobs in the US, and increase energy exploration. The aggressive US position on pre-emptive invasion, a clear violation of international law and major threat to world peace, should not be allowed to contextualize the Chinese moves which, given China's intense global economic integration, clearly are related to China's two and a half decades of economic reform! Once again, Americans are hypocritical! If another country rejected a US bid for the purchase of a foreign company on security grounds the US marines would be knocking on their front door the very next morning. Additionally, the offending country would have to endure a tiresome harrangue about the virtues of the free market. As far as my education in Madison is concerned it is my ONLY real achievement.Posted by steve on 2005-07-17 04:45:57

Steve,
Ah, now you let loose with the transnational capital flow bull shit.
China's motives are clearly strategic and have little or nothing to do with integrating China within the grand international market scheme.
Let's make one point clear, their actions need not be interpreted as being of an offensive or aggressive nature. Given the US position on pre-emptive intervention, the Chinese position might and should be considered as being defensive, cautionary and rational. We are increasingly perceived as being the international threat.
Regardless , relinquishing the UNOCAL assets can only result in exacerbating the already greatly vulnerable position of the United States.
In many ways, your education in Madison has let you down.
Cheers,
troubled in the HeartlandPosted by troubled in the Heartland on 2005-07-16 22:31:47

Margaret,
I must strenuously disagree with assessment of China's energy motives. Everything that has been said about the understandable logic of China's motivations with regard to reducing dependance on inefficient, dirty coal (which comprises about 75% of China's energy supply, cleaning up the environment, requiring a steady localized and locally controlled means of energy for industrialization and growing urban mass consumer needs, and for future energy security is reasonable. China's search for energy sources nearby in East Asia makes sense. Much of Unocal's main natural gas and oil exploration is in Asia. China's industrial revolution is the fourth greatest in history since the UK, the US, and Japan each of which had independant sources of oil (Japan's sources lie in southeast asia in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Indochina). Certainly, China's generous deal should not be regarded as a threat by anyone. China doesn't want to outmanuveur the US because China depends a great deal on the US for markets, financial investment, inward capital flows, and technology transfer. The global mergering of capital has created a Transnational Capitalist Class which even includes members of the former communist world and in the transitioning "communist" world like China. The ongoing universalization of capitalism as a global system of accumulation has placed stresses on residual national social and political forms as they struggle to find relevance in the new order and adapt to new forms and structures of governance. The old coalitions have broken up and much of the political instability and national polarization is a reflection of this phenomenon. The struggle between the national and the global is still progressing. It is evident that Bush nationalism is in a struggle with neo-liberal globalism in its push for US unilateralism, military hegemonism, and US protectionism and control of global trade and investment rules. Globalists are more multilateral and willing to partake on equal terms with a growing Transnational Capitalist Class and its global state apparatus in decision-making as capital globalizes while Bush sees the old nation-state conflicts prevailing whereby US hegemony is sought as a way of staying on top! The more fully capital merges and integrates the more the globalists will prevail. Nationalism is also a form of retrograde counter-hegemonic resistance on the part of those who benefit least. Right-wing populism is a reflection of this trend. Eventually, the US will build on its old military power and prowess developed in the early post-WWII era and become the global bodyguard of world capitalism instead of just a guardian of its own national interests. This dialectical development will merge the cold war era's highly concentrated military role for the US in Western Alliance foreign policy strategy with its new global role as the main security force for an increasingly integrating Transnational Capitalist Class in which the US has much power, but very little of its former hegemony.Posted by Steve on 2005-07-16 14:01:03

But, Steve, Germany and the EU don't have aspirations of becoming the next world superpower by "defeating" the U.S. China absolutely does.
We cannot allow yet another foreign power to control our energy needs. Comparing the UK (BP) to China is really an apples to oranges comparison.Posted by Margaret on 2005-07-16 13:18:32

The nationalist hysteria about China's purchase of a US oil firm is quite misplaced. The economy is global in nature. Economic integration is TOTAL given the pattern of global capital flows based on TNC direct investment. An Historian freind of mine claims, "...the German transnational Siemans is active in every state in the US, it delivers one-third of all energy in North America and is amoung the top 100 employers. As a German corporation it doesn't seek to outcompete the US economy because it is part of the US economy. It seeks to outcompete General Electric and their competition spreads over the entire globe. Transnational competition isn't based on one nation dominating another because the economic viability and stability of every nation is important to the overall success and accumulation of global capital. This is also evident in the spread of foreign direct investments..." China's increase in per unit of output energy end use efficiency is an integral part of TNC investment strategy and competition and is important to the effective overall expansion of global capitalism in general. By now it should be obvious that capital is utterly global, not national. Reverting to nationalist protectionism will not redistribute wealth or stem the tide of global inequality. What is needed is a global new deal to retain more of the wealth generated by capitalism in workers' hands and in the poor communities they inhabit.Posted by Steve on 2005-07-16 10:56:56

Merlin,
Well, at least the judge who is presiding over the Rove investigation said on page 41 of his decision that the breach of national security here was so great that he turned against his natural inclination to protect the reporter. If he can just turn into a Sam Irvin and stick like glue to wallpaper, we might have the next Watergate, at last!
I know you're old enough to remember that one, as do I. This actually reminds me of that one a lot. Nixon and his minions kept saying, "No break-in happened", then, "we had nothing to do with it". The prosecutors stuck with it and the rest is history.
We progressives have been beat down so long here, we've got to get over the idea that we can't win. We've got to get loud, vocal, pushy and persistent. Glad to see you Lefty hanging in there. So sad that crap face has driven so many intelligent progressives to other sites (I don't like any other site as well).Posted by Margaret on 2005-07-15 20:11:17

I mentioned LedeenPosted by Merlin on 2005-07-15 19:27:28

Michael Hardesty, J Craig, Lin Bio, Martin.... A rose by any other name... smells the way it smells. (Whew! What IS that smell???)
The only people Posted by Merlin on 2005-07-15 18:36:14

Hi Lefty,
You stated:
Posted by Merlin on 2005-07-15 18:11:58

And I am the real Margaret. For one thing, Lefty can't be me because he wouldn't ever admit to being a born-again Christian, which I am. Just not a blind one.
I fear that America is done for if the Republicans stay in power and China buys up our energy companies with Bush's blessing (and outstretched hand). The GOP must be defeated in large numbers in 2006 if there is to be any hope of survival for a democratic republic in our country.Posted by Margaret on 2005-07-15 16:49:14

Troubled, "Martin" is Michael Hardesty, the forum conservative troll. His goal is to sidetrack the discourse. He gets paid to do this. You're wasting your time responding to his posts. Please scroll up and read my posts.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-15 14:34:46

Pete said: "It will be fascinating to see which of these two mutually-exclusive priorities--national security versus unfettered equity markets and a windfall for oil industry investors--the Bush Administration chooses to support. For all of BushPosted by Lefty on 2005-07-15 14:31:42

Well Martin, I'd say to you it's time to break out the umbrella. Take a gander at this:
"AP - By May, the median home price in California climbed to $522,590 - more than double the price in most other states. To buy the typical home with monthly payments of $3,067, a California family would need to earn about $122,700 to qualify for a conventional loan.
In other high-cost states, the situation is not much improved. The average family in Florida earns nearly $44,000, which fell 26 percent short of the amount needed to finance a median-priced home last year, according to a study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp."Posted by troubled in the heartland on 2005-07-14 00:15:55

Omigod ! Capitalism in crisis again !
It will be collapsin' any day and we little
fellers will run things instead of the
Rockefellers...............
Any day, those Trot prophecies will come true.
The sky is falling ! The sky is falling !Posted by Martin on 2005-07-13 12:55:24

Troubled in the Heartland,
Who says I disagree with your statement?! I happen to think that your analysis and facts are right on target! With livestock prices dropping and consumer beef products prices increasing we seem to have a problem of agribusiness monopoly that is overcharging the consumer, squeezing the small farmer, adding to balance of payments deficits, and probably lowering the quality of food due to CAFTA's allowing TNCs to evade FDA standards! Globalization and agreements like CAFTA are bad not good! TNCs are behind them not most of the rest of civil society!Posted by steve on 2005-07-12 16:41:19

Your apology is accepted, Dr.X.Posted by Martin on 2005-07-12 13:51:46

is lefty now posting as Dr.X ? how many identities does this sick fvck have ? first he
posts some undocumented libel and then comes on to
repudiate himself !!!!! this is getting old and is
an abuse of the forum and these people should come clean or be banned. if you accuse someone else of being paid or using different ID's, then
either prove it or STFU. or better yet try dealing with their arguments which none of the mentally challenged leftists on this board are capable of doing ! god, are you people sorry excuses ! but I have to admit I always feel better when I come here and see how weak you libs are. every year your ranks get more attenuated............Posted by Sheila on 2005-07-12 13:45:42

I apologize to all the people that I have libelled on this board and there are too many to
name. I repudiate all my libellous previous postings and urge people to ignore any future postings by a Dr.X.
The only thing I ever busted was one of my nuts in a vigorous game of pocket pool, which is the
only activity, intellectual or physical, that I
EVER excelled at.
Again, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.Posted by Dr.X on 2005-07-12 13:36:55

I repudiate the rantings of DrX above, this phony
has again made false, libelous accusations against
posters whom he disagrees with on this board.
Why not post your real name and address so you can
be investigated and sued ? DrX has committed the
crime of identity theft against me, the only person he has ever busted is himself because he
is the prime multiple poster and identity thief on
this site. He has lost every argument he has engaged in on the whole board.
I feel sorry for him except he's a criminal.Posted by wwoods on 2005-07-12 13:32:24

Hey,I've got an idea
If the Democrats really want to get even with the Republicans for all their deception,maybe we could take up a collection,giving the money to China to help them complete the deal.Posted by Dr.X on 2005-07-12 12:12:13

Now Jack is posting as wwoods,to say nothing of his new one,Sheila.
Jack,you wouldn't be so easy to catch if you didn't misuse words like repudiate.Your writing style and vocabulary are distinct.You should've figured this out the fifty other times I've busted you for posting under false names.Alas,you don't learn.I suppose stupidity can be viewed as determination,given the wrong perspective.
Also,don't apologize as other people.Apologize as yourself and then go away.
Oh,one more thing.Having another person post your ridiculous drivel with their terminal doesn't conceal anything.160 IQ,my *ss!Now,begone!You political low-roller!
With that out of the way...
Whee doggy!China wants to get into the oil business!Cutting into the market and territory that Bush and his cronies,particularly Darth Cheney,have lied so hard to corner.Just what the right-wingers deserve.I wonder how the belief in"free enterprise"the right possesses will endure with real competition?With Unocal being a major player in Iraq,Bush may find himself cheated out of his reason for war.GOOD!
I wonder what Ayn Rand would say about this,Hmm.
theloneous,
Yes,Bush and Darth were tricked.Don't you love it?
Myopia often accompanies greed.Now,the right has a real problem.
Only Nixon could go to China.
Only Bush could provoke them.Posted by Dr.X on 2005-07-12 12:07:27

christ almighty, how long do we have to put with your schizoid rantings, lefty ? are you winning this running debate with yourself or are you losing it (pun intended) ? is your personal life
that BORING that you have to have schizophrenic
debates with yourself and your multiple identities, barnes, hardesty, merlin, liz, gordon,
steve (several), wwoods, angelo, margaret, holy
cow ! how many more ? this is public board, presumably not a private psychiatric cell, if you
need a large rubber room, go for it............
but people should ignore all postings by lefty, this guy (?) is a jackoff wack job of the kind you
see wandering the streets, we gotta get bush to restore those mental health cuts now !Posted by Sheila on 2005-07-12 10:55:43

It will be fascinating to see which of these two mutually-exclusive priorities--national security versus unfettered equity markets and a windfall for oil industry investors--the Bush Administration chooses to support. For all of Bush's drumbeating about national security, I'm guessing it will be the latter.Posted by Pete on 2005-07-12 10:30:10

Lefty--
The question posed was a serious one. Land available for cultivation is disappearing through urban encroachment and other factors including soil depletion , drought, and loss of ground water reserves. True enough, there is no less water on the planet. In fact, with global warming even more liquid water is being introduced as the ice caps melt away. The problem is the water is not where we want it. Hemp can be an important crop, but it is not the panacea many wish for.
The great heartland where we traditionally grew our bounty is in trouble and will not be able to deliver.
We need to recognize the significance of this recourse and create protections for it as soon as possible. Being without the ability to be nationally self-sufficient in future food production can only lead to dire consequences.
By the way, check the labels on the food you are currently buying. You might be surprised to learn how much of it is coming from elsewhere. Even at that, labels don't tell the whole truth. Under the rules of NAFTA, one out five head of cattle processed and stamped USDA is actually from Mexico or Canada. CAFTA will allow even more countries to be labelled USDA. Great for agribusiness. Live cattle this week is being sold at $78 dollars per hundred weight and the price is dropping. Ten years ago producers were getting $1.10 per hundred weight. Ten years ago you could buy steak in the market for around $3 or $4. Today, it is selling for $9 or $10. What do you think is up with that? (Steve, hold your horses, the last was a rhetorical question and I do not need another round of TNC capital flow bull shit.)
Our small farmers are being squeezed out of existence. So get ready, IBP, ConAgra, and Cargill are soon going to make the machinations of OPEC seem like child's play.Posted by troubled in the heartland on 2005-07-12 08:16:47

Troubled,
First of all, there is not one less drop of water in the world than there was a billion years ago. Irrigation is a non-issue.
As for where we would grow hemp, how about right where we are growing subsidized food crops that are exported and/or wasted, or how about where tobacco is grown now. Hemp is much more profitable than food crops or tobacco and much easier on the soil than tobacco.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-12 05:23:40

China generates well below the installed electrical capacity which it possesses and probably requires greater access to energy resources in order to provide for increased consumer demand. Annual increases in urban population growth brought about by above average GDP growth rates require that China efficiently and cost effectively meet that growing demand for electrical power generation. This is also a possible motive for the Unocal bid. China's energy demand is not all production oriented but also consumption oriented as its urban population alone totals almost the entire US population.Posted by steve on 2005-07-11 18:41:49

Maybe somebody mentioned this in an earlier post but it appears Ol Uncle Sam has been set up.
"If the deal is not allowed, it sends a message to Chinese companies and perhaps they might start looking for other ways, other markets to do business with."
They might start liquidating that "measly 4 percent return they earn on U.S. T-bills" which would kill the dollar. USA = United States belong to Asia.
Or they might decide to just take possession of Unocal assets including "Asia's largest stores of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which CNOOC needs for the new LNG terminals it is building along China's coastline. Unocal also owns specialized deep water drilling technology that CNOOC needs to explore its own gas reserves." What's to stop them, the US military?Posted by theloneous on 2005-07-11 14:54:37

thanks for your brave admission mr woods, really appreciate your courage in revealing what a psycho you are. i would never characterize the rantings of the leftists like lefty or is he a
kahanist rightist (?) as "civilized" that is too much of a raw laugh.Posted by Sheila on 2005-07-11 14:46:17

I just posted above as Dr.X.
I apologize to all of the people that I
have defamed on this board.
Sometimes I get extended time here at
the prison library and I abuse it.
Again, please accept my most humble apologies.Posted by wwoods on 2005-07-11 14:43:07

Here's Jack posting as lefty using his ridiculous remote unit that leaves his signature margin.
Jack is a FREEPER.Someone paid by the right to disrupt civilized discussion with his calulated comments that have a veneer of stupidity.
Oh,you should also look in the archives at some of his other posts.Pretty creepy.Posted by Dr.X on 2005-07-11 13:20:58

the Ogallala Aquifer is drying up---less than 25 years of water less in some areas according to studies by Kansas State University. it is this aquifer that supplies the ground water from the Dakotas down through to Texas. just where would one expect to cultivate the hemp to be processed into oil? additionally, where will we expect our food crops to grown?Posted by troubled in the heartland on 2005-07-11 05:25:17

GreyArea said:
"I don’t know which will be worse, global warming or simply running out of oil. We are approaching a scenario where both eventualities are most likely. I Imagine the US will eventually be begging China to curtail its use of petrolium so as to keep the CO2 levels down and to leave some reserves for the rest of us. Should they consider our request? Just yesterday, we made no concessions at all about climate change at the G8."
My understanding is that hemp oil can replace petrolium for almost any purpose. If this is true, is it any surprise that hemp, as an unlimited energy resource, among many other uses, is illegal?Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-10 15:29:39

Dr. D,
You're confused about the USSC's role when it comes to corporations. It's not the federal court that defines the existence of a corporation, it's state legislators. There's no such thing as a federal corporation, they exist according to the law of the state they are registered in.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-10 15:24:24

of interest is the following excerpt from the describing Unocal's business plan:
TESTIMONY BY JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS UNOCAL CORPORATION TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC 2/12/98
"Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation. Unocal is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies. Our activities are focused on three major regions -- Asia, Latin America and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In Asia and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer...
Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region, its resources and U.S. policy:
The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas.
The need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan.
The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
>>Two major energy infrastructure projects are seeking to meet this challenge. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, or CPC, plans to build a pipeline west from the Northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk. From Novorossisk, oil from this line would be transported by tanker through the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean and world markets.
>The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies including four American companies -- Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. It will follow one or both of two routes west from Baku. One line will angle north and cross the North Caucasus to Novorossisk. The other route would cross Georgia and extend to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea port of Supsa. This second route may be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
>Unocal believes that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Just as Central Asia was the meeting ground between Europe and Asia in centuries past, it is again in a unique position to potentially service markets in both of these regions...
The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents and provide energy for growth for Europe and Asia.
The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant and intertwined. Without peaceful settlement of conflicts within the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the U N-led peace process in Afghanistan.
U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business' success. We encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907. This section unfairly restricts U.S. government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.
Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a "new" Silk Road, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand -- once again making Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia."Posted by troubled in the heartland on 2005-07-10 01:57:11

As Khrushev declared at the U.N: Capitalists will sell the ropes to hang themselves.
Unfortunately, most of us are forced to go along just for the ride.
Posted by Gnostic Communications
Kruschev said that, because, the USSR was financed by the same Euro-Royals (and their "Jewish" front men bankers. They get rich from war while the bulk of Jews suffer from the "little blood baths" they finance for fun and profit. Divide and conquer, they always say
One message, two wings.
Unite and be unconquered.Posted by LL on 2005-07-09 21:06:35

Not if we join with the third world, and stop servicing the bank debts in any form. Is that really to hard for Americans. The rest of the world is waiting for us.
It's our dream they want, let's kick out England AND
the Holy Roman Empire for GOOD.Posted by Litlle LATER on 2005-07-09 20:52:52

As Khrushev declared at the U.N: Capitalists will sell the ropes to hang themselves.
Unfortunately, most of us are forced to go along just for the ride.Posted by Gnostic Communications on 2005-07-09 18:21:10

The US became the focus of World Capital Development, so one generation was allowed real progress and wealth. The fruits of their labor, is the Military, Financial, and Industrial Empire we see today.
By putting the Air, Water, Forests, Education, Police, and Health Care under the jurisdiction of the Central-Government, the "liberals" set the stage for the neo-con team to come in.
By the way:
Wilson died bemoaning, "I destroyed my country.
Teddy’s grandfather became a shareholder in the Federal Reserve Bank. Teddy's grandson pulled the first CIA Coup, in Iran, 1952. Reinstalling the cruel Shah- privatizing the oil, assasinating all secular leaders, Thus leaving religion,the only organizing force.
Andrew Jackson’s tombstone reads, “I killed the Bank! Britain's response,they pushed and backed the South in the Civil War.
*** Hey, give me the 3 main reasons why, “they are relocating our industry and military to Asia”.
Yep, - Oilcation, Oilcation, Oilcation.Posted by Little Late on 2005-07-09 11:59:54

Since you would like to know, I was talking about the Federal Reserve, but it applies to China as well.
Here goes!
Contrary to Popular myth, the Federal Reserve, like all central banks, is a privately held (not publicly traded or govermental) corporation, which has money printed at cost by the Treasury (about 25 cents for a hundred dollar bill).
In exchange for "their" money, "we the people" sign a T-bill guaranteeing to pay it back with interest.
Now comes the secret of fractional banking.
Now that $100 T-bill becomes bank reserves, enabling them to create 10 times as much, or $1000 to loan to their own comercial banks(Chase, Citybank, etc.)
This is how they bought all the gold in Fort Knox, the media, oil, chemical,drug, agriculture,and our government.
The Chinese create money to buy US debt, then we buy more stuff from them, and our National and State Lands become the collateral.
It's not the Chinese, it's the corporations that relocated industry and capital to China.
Trust me, the Chinese are not "Great" because their girls are "enslaved" in sweatshops and the Natural Resources are raped.
Most countries are not even allowed a citizen on their Central Bank.
Even your local bank creates money out of nothing. Well, not out of nothing, this inflation is a tax on every dollar, and the advantage goes to the nobility (credit worthy).
Don't worry,they will retract the money supply again soon, confiscating wealth and causing a Depression, like they've been doing throughout history, and if we start to catch on, terrorism and wars seems to happen, rallying the people against a "common enemy"
The History of this country is a battle with the European Bankers represented by Hamilton and the Adam's.
The war of 1812 was because we didn't renew the banks charter.
Lincoln and Kennedy created U.S. currency,
with-out the banks,and moved on to another realm.
In fact Benjamin Franklin says the real impetus for the Revolution was, the depression which set in, when the Brits confiscated our colonial script, while cutting the money supply in half.
As for the neo-cons being the problem, this is short sited. Two teams under one thumb.
I have always identified as Liberal, but, I'm not fooled by either party.
A little history. Year 1911.
No democrats could get elected president, since the Civil War. Suddenly, Teddy Roosevelt split the Republicans, by creating the Bull Moose Party and ushered Woodrow Wilson into the White House. Under the guidance of his financer, he created the Fed, the IRS, and got us into WWI. (anyone thinking Perot-Clinton-WTO/Nafta)
The Fed slashed the money supply in '29 , the insiders sold their stocks, crashing the market, then picked up everything dirt cheap, while the rest of the investors leapt out windows. In 3 years, when the effect of the retraction set in, we had the "Great Depression”.
Stage left, F.D.R.. In Geneva he declared the USA Bankrupt and put us under the unnamed European creditor (Rothschild anyone). The money supply was kept tight until we entered WWII. The battered Americans embraced FDR’s handouts like scraps from the masters table, and our memory of history was lost to public education.(everyone used to know this stuff).
Hence, the creation of a large central- government which in- debts us with every dollar spent.Posted by Little Late on 2005-07-09 11:58:10

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) China has 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities. Time Magazine reported in one of their recent issues that 300,000 Chinese die each year as a direct cause of air pollution, most of it from unregulated, high sulfur content coal-burning fuels.
I agree with Jehangir Pocha that we should get used to China's increased financial muscle power but disagree with Merlin's statement "The Chinese are using the same kind of argument strategy that the wingers are using. Dragging a red herring (our “sacred capitalism”) across our path so we don’t see their real motivation!"
More to Merlin's alarmist concerns should be the Russian oil consortium, Lukoil, which has interests in 13 states, most of which are on the east coast but with plans to expand into markets on the west coast. The Moscow-based conglomerate is the largest oil producer, refiner and distributor in Russia and second in the world in proven oil and natural gas reserves behind ExxonMobil. Currently, Lukoil has about 2,500 gas stations in the United States with sole ownership of Getty Petroleum Marketing and the $270 million acquisition of Mobil stations from ConocoPhillips.
Though G. W. Bush may have had the corporate interests in mind (who else?) when he rejected the Kyoto treaty he is correct that China, the second leading contributor of greenhouse gases behind the U.S., and other emerging industrial nations must also be part of any mandatory regulations if there is to be any progress in stopping this unchecked poisoning of the air we breathe.
According to Robert J. Samuelson of Newsweek in his article dispelling the heightened rhetoric over China's attempt to acquire Unocal, "Let's Stay Out of This Fight" he stresses one point that I didn't know earlier and that is Unocal's oil production is only 57,000 barrels per day out of the total U. S. output of 7.3 million barrels. Plus, according to Samuelson, the Chinese conglomerate CNOOC intends to keep it here.
Besides, China and the U.S. have much more of a mutual dependency because of the cheap Chinese labor that, even though it has created a $160 billion trade deficit with the U.S., companies like Wal-Mart benefit American consumers. Wal-Mart employs about 660,000 people worldwide but most of their profits are a result of keeping to their motto, "We Sell for Less." Selling for less benefits the U.S. middle income and the growing lower income population who must, by necessity, buy the cheapest they can find.
We need China, in spite of the perception, falsely conceived according to Samuelson, of a "takeover" of our resources. Better to have your potential adversaries in front of you where you can deal with them face-to-face than to have them implement tariffs and embargoes which would hurt everybody.
After all, corporate America had no trouble selling U.S. assets and companies to Japan during the heyday of Japan's booming economy in the 80s and early 90s. The Savings and Loan fiasco that fed into the unprecedented deregulation allowed those lending institutions to squander investors' savings to the tune of $400 billion. Yet, through it all, the U.S. economy survived quite well.Posted by Richard on 2005-07-09 11:51:43

The Chinese deal should definitely be allowed to go through. The fact that the neo-cons object so strongly just confirms the fact that we're in Iraq only to gain strategic control of China's oil (as well as everyone elses!)I'd like to know how China created debts with "free money" by purchasing US T-notes? They're using hard earned foreign exchange gleaned from "free trade" and FDI in their growing economy! As the article says, they'll skip the low risk/low yield T-notes for higher yield, riskier private capital funds. They may even purchase some funds outright, start some banks, or get into the finance business in the US if they think there will be trouble down the road with their investments. Funny how a little over one hundred years ago the US focus on the China Market led us to war in the far east to achieve a Pacific military presence to secure our markets, investments, and economic advantages there. Today we a struggling to keep the Chinese from gradually making the US economy a Chinese satellite (of course if they want to be successful they will eventually have to compete with the Saudis!) But I digress! The real shape of the global economy is defined by TNC investment and not country to country trade. The Chinese don't have much in the way of aggressive TNC in the sense the US, Europeans, and Japanese do. The national Chinese Oil Company is not as globally strategic in its investment approaches as it is tied to its own internal economic and social development, including pollution control and energy efficiency and security. This should give the US no concern at all. To the extent that it will actually strengthen US foreign investment in China in the long run it is a plus!Posted by Steve on 2005-07-09 07:12:33

Amazing! We let China replace our towns(walmart)
our jobs, and made them our creditors.
Now, when they are competing with Rockefeller(Exxon,mobile,texaco,and almost every other important US corp.) we are rallied to defend
"our country".
I agree with "let them have tHeir peices of paper,
we'll take it back when we laugh at the debts THEY created with free money.(THE FED)Posted by Little Late on 2005-07-09 01:29:07

At a recient local meeting of the Liberterian Party, they stated that they are a hot bed of free trade. A party of the independent relm of politics, are screaming against this Marxist take over of America. As are the Democrats and those currently in power.
Now then: This republic of elected represenatives, needs something; what it needs is more political parties,(sans booze) less nationalism,and more education. Education is the important element here. The deliberate dumbing of the American public by lack of education has lead us into the situation(s) we are now in!
Once we were a great nation, however, after viet Nam, Central and South America, and Africa and to many other places to mention, we have depleted our natural resources, depleted our standing amoung nations, lost face, and have almost won Universal disrespect.
Good luck China, you will end up with us on the bottom of the heap.Posted by Alvin on 2005-07-08 20:04:13

These lyrics from the song: Send in the Clowns.
Don't you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Not a bad take on this neocon administration. The whole song fits in one way or another.
My head swims with how it applies. Take the line: “I thought that you'd want what I want.” Sort of what the Dobsonites must be thinking as they wake up to the fact that they were scammed by Bush and are now demanding payback (Supreme Court Justice) for their votes.
Yeah! The clowns are already running the show.Posted by Merlin on 2005-07-08 19:03:18

I had this really radical idea.... Quit the unnecessary wars (saving billions of gallons of fuel and trillions in miltary costs) and put all the cash into buying up the oil companies, and exploration sites. If the US really wants to go even one better - (whoa!) use some of this cash into research and developement of serious alternative sources. Another radical idea might be to stop the facade, take off our fair, good-guy mask and openly be the bullying, murdering, rip off your resources country we are. (Public be damned - its not like we have honest elections anymore anyhow). Whatever course they decide to follow, they will be forced do so soon.Posted by Brad on 2005-07-08 18:16:45

That statement was made in tongue in cheek.Posted by ryan compton on 2005-07-08 17:27:57

Whats going on here. All of us want free trade to lower wages in the U.S. Both major parties have been bought out by corporatations. All of us want the American worker to make the same wages as the Chinese and Mexicans. We need to do whatever it takes to increase corporate profits. In order to achieve this we need to cut taxes for the most wealthy Americans. We also need to allow the International Unions to contribute to politicians that support free trade agreements to achieve our ultimate goal. And that would be to have most Americans living in the same conditions as the Chinese and Mexicans. Lets continue on this path. We can succeed.Posted by ryancompton on 2005-07-08 17:19:07

This from an article published in the Financial Times on July 6 2005
“Private warnings point to a worsening long-term outlook, with Saudi officials saying that the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries will be unable to meet projected western demand in 10 to 15 years.
At today's prices, the world will need the cartel to boost its production from 30m to 50m barrels a day to 50m by 2020 to meet rapidly rising demand, according to the International Energy Agency, the energy watchdog for consuming countries.
Senior Saudi energy officials have privately warned US and European counterparts that Opec would have an “extremely difficult time” meeting that demand. Saudi Arabia calculates there is a 4.5m b/d gap between what the world needs and what the kingdom can provide.”
This is the reality from Saudi Arabia folks! Note that they are talking about “western demand.” This does not include China! What will China’s demand for oil be in the next ten years? With their rate of growth it should be BIG.
The above article ignores this big and coming picture and reduces this argument to capitalistic wrangling and what’s “fair.” Unless we begin to wean our country off our seriously dangerous dependence on oil, we had better hold on to what ever resources we possess. To have Unocal owned by China would be a serious mistake.Posted by Merlin on 2005-07-08 16:44:01

This looks like a job for Special Agent for the C.I.A., Fritz, the Cat.Posted by Tim Christopher on 2005-07-08 13:58:21

I don't know which will be worse, global warming or simply running out of oil. We are approaching a scenario where both eventualities are most likely. I Imagine the US will eventually be begging China to curtail its use of petrolium so as to keep the CO2 levels down and to leave some reserves for the rest of us. Should they consider our request? Just yesterday, we made no concessions at all about climate change at the G8.
Cooperation is often in our best interest. Bush can't see that so he must think that the other 7 countries at the G8 are chumps to sign on to the Kyoto treaty.Posted by GrayArea on 2005-07-08 13:48:46

Gee???!!! Is not turn-about fair play??? As an American, I cannot see any problem with it.
Global warming can now be blamed on somebnody else. Perhaps the Chinese will change the data to themselves like our past adminstrations. Marxism was always the sleeping giant, so I am told, and look what happened. China, the next, if not now, future rich kid of the world.Posted by Alvin on 2005-07-08 13:23:07

Jeez Lefty,I feel like I just got slapped on my pee pee by a frustrated nun back in gradeschool.I'm very sorry,but I think I may have confused constitutional amendments with Supreme Court decisions(arbitrary as they may be).How do I reconcile this? Maybe I could argue about the disproportionate power of the federal judiciary over the federal legislative branch.Maybe I can rail against our so called "representatives"lack of responsibility to their constituents.How about the truth?In reality,a corporation is not a viable "person".Supreme Court decisions have,in fact,deemed corporations as "persons",with all of the rights afforded to individual people(us).Because corporate entities now have the rights that were originally intended for private citizens alone,they are their way to turning all of us into wage slaves.As a matter of fact,their job is almost done.Working people can't declare bankruptsy anymore,but Donald Trump can.The highest court in the land said that it's not a problem to throw people out of their houses in favor of the prospect of greater tax revenue.If reasonably intelligent people realize what's going on,we could collectively kick some fascist ass.Hope springs eternal.Posted by Dr.D on 2005-07-07 21:27:52

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, and was ratified after the Civil War in 1865. The 14th Amendment, also related to the anti-slavery issue created, among other things, constitutional "due process" and "equal protection" of the law, and was ratified in 1866. Both are set forth, in full, below.
13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-07 20:01:18

Voila! I believe that I may have stumbled onto a solution to foreign corporate invasion.All we have to do is repeal the 13th amendment to the Constitution,I may be wrong,but I believe that is the amendment that gives "personhood"to corporate entities;thereby giving them "super citizen" status.In the old days, before a group of greedy railroad magnates,dismayed by the terribly inconvenient constraints of the Constitution of the United States,decided to buy themselves a Congressional majority to change the existing law of the land,which was state and local charters issued by local and state elected representatives.Before the passage of this amendment,local and state governments were actually able to revoke a corporations'charter for overstepping it's bounds.Corporate charters were reviewed on a regular basis,and not renewed if there was a whiff of impropriety.Corporations could not legally buy other corporations,case closed. The framers of our original constitution were not stupid,what about us?Posted by Dr.D on 2005-07-07 18:16:29

okay, conservative americans. although i doubt conservative americans are the only free marketeers in the US.
i married a liberal so i have to take issue with your final statement!Posted by kingfelix on 2005-07-07 13:27:30

KingFelix,
I would ask that you not paint with such a broad brush. It's not "Americans" who are the bullies, it's conservatives. They can't get along with anyone in the world, and everyone in the world despises them. Liberals are more practical and reasonable by nature.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-07 13:15:39

I love the moaning, here. So free markets are fine as long as the US is pre-eminent. Once someone outbids the US, hey, the rules need to be changed. Americans, please don't cry! Your logic is the logic of the playground bully who has just seen a much bigger kid wandering through the school gates.
The US coped with the Soviet Union competing for resources, now it can match itself against China. I hardly think it requires a rewriting of the rules of international trade. Look at the facts, US corporations are busily entering the Chinese market in the hunt for profit. Give and take, ever heard of it? I'll give you a clue, that's why it's called Trade.Posted by kingfelix on 2005-07-07 12:57:38

SD:
Maybe the government would buy the company - but, you know, we'd have to borrow the cash from the Chinese to do it. We don't have that kind of money anymore.
With respect to energy, free enterprise isn't really free. The system works for the energy companies and not for the consumer. Record proficts for the energy companies and unprecedented prices at the pump for the consumer. Meanwhile, the government is playing an active role in fostering an environment of inelastic demand.
tw makes a good point about the abstinence-only, faith-based tax policy in this country as well. You could shutter every government agency and program besides defense, homeland security and health and human services, and we'd still be running a deficit.Posted by GrayArea on 2005-07-07 09:36:45

But Daneman, how could that be that China is beating us? is it b/c the free market rhetoric is just a joke? hmmmm... while we're thinking, lets give our farmers more subsidies to compete on the global front. And corporations more tax cuts. But wait! that's not free! That's corporate welfare! Hmm... something isn't right here... Must be somewhere in this Ayn Rand book...Posted by tw on 2005-07-07 09:13:59

Let them buy whatever they want. It'll all be nationalized when the revolution happens anyway ; )Posted by NYC Insurgent on 2005-07-07 08:20:28

S.D., YOU . . . should be on the USSC. LOL.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-06 19:26:10

With the helpful assistance of the board's input, I have reached the following conclusion to resolve the issue with complete finality. The US Government should buy Unocal and add its resources to the strategic reserve. If the shareholders vote otherwise, the federal governmet should condemn the assets using eminnent domain. Level the playing field. End of story.Posted by S. Daneman on 2005-07-06 18:10:29

I guess what I'm trying to say is - will Bush, by his deeds (certainly not his words), concede that the "free market" is, on balance, a bad place.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-06 17:21:36

G.A. said: "Our model still looks much like the one that let Enron flourish."
Bingo! And that model is under-regulated capitalism.
S.D., Of course it's not fair trade. Why should the Chinese engage in fair trade? What interest or motivation do they have to be fair?Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-06 17:19:47

Ironic, but not hilarious. This is a major strategic issue: China and its government controlled companies play by a different set of rules. Anti-trust, environmental regulations, patents, copyrights, human rights, just don't apply. This doesn't even resemble fair trade. Its not just a question of China government "support" (although interest free loans to support the acquisition certainly constitute a subsidy not available to Chevron), it is China government control of the entire venture though owing 100% of the parent company. Yes, they are cheating and I am glad the US is finally starting to pay attention. The stategic risk of our China, Inc. policies will now become clear: when Congress rejects the Chinese government "demand" to butt-out be prepared for China to spark a financial crisis by dumping US Treasuries. We are already at greater risk than the general public realizes.Posted by S. Daneman on 2005-07-06 16:06:44

Is the problem really that CNOOC is nationally controlled? If you think about it, wouldn't you like it if our country's oil companies were controlled by the government instead of having our government controlled by the oil companies.
It seems likely that the behavior of CNOOC would align with the goals of the Chinese government and (I suppose) Chinese consumers over American consumers. Whether they do or do not, if supplies dwindle, Unocal will be an asset that the Chinese will be very glad to have.
Meanwhile, who has our back? Nobody, that's who. How can we create a decent energy policy when our national interests are taking a back seat to oil company profits? I'm still looking for a serious approach to conservation in our plans, but it isn't really there. Why do you suppose that is? Our model still looks much like the one that let Enron flourish.
You make a good point about trading wealth for trinkets, but can you really blame the US consumer? have you actually *tried* to buy American? It isn't as if we actually build anything in this country anymore. It is incredibly ironic that the Bush administration's answer to our recession was to tell us all to go shopping. We're simply drinking what they're selling. (to paraphrase an old Cake tune)Posted by GrayArea on 2005-07-06 16:01:02

S. Daneman,
It sounds like you are saying that the Chinese are cheating because their government is supporting their corporate takeover. Wouldn't it be ironic (read: hilarious) if the Chinese -communist, government micromanaged economy - conquers the American capitalists in the world markets.Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-06 15:42:16

The US consumer seems hell-bend on trading $1 plastic trinkits for wealth; wealth that will now be used by the Chinese Government to purchase stategic resouces and dual-use military equipment that they have not been able to steal through spying. Just normal capitalism? Hardly! This oil company is owned and controlled by the Chinese Government, and while promising not to divert supplies currently going to the US, it will be in a key position to blackmail asian countries at a time of crisis. Bejing 2008 begins to look alot like Berlin 1936. Solution? Boycott China. Don't buy that junk. The American public is the last defense against politicians and corporate "leaders" who are gladly selling America's future for a fistful of gold.Posted by S. Daneman on 2005-07-06 15:15:55

America has started its long expected slide as a new super power emerges that will compete with us at every level and for all future resources. Will the Eagle ever fly again? At the vast rate of change since this administration took office in 2000, its less and less likely.Posted by B.Burt on 2005-07-06 15:01:47

From the article:
"Right now CNOOC is only following the rules of free trade,..."
“...which Chinese companies backed by the Chinese government...”
What bald faced bilge!!!
This isn’t just about capitalism. This isn’t capitalism! This is about OIL and our source of energy. In our present dependent state oil is our life blood. It is essential to do EVERYTHING we do, and with our so called “leadership” doing worse than nothing to move toward energy independence, giving a foreign (friendly?) govt this leverage would be disastrous. One more step in the wrong direction.
The Chinese are using the same kind of argument strategy that the wingers are using. Dragging a red herring (our “sacred capitalism”) across our path so we don’t see their real motivation!Posted by Merlin on 2005-07-06 14:02:30

Welcome to the United States of WalMart!Posted by SB on 2005-07-06 12:57:32

Between the Neo-cons and China, the U.S. is being to be carved up like a potroast. Pretty soon, Chinese real estate developers are going to condemn your houses (with the aid of the local township of course), and build beautiful new multi-million dollar condos on your former land for rich Chinese to live in.
Conservatism = government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.
IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?Posted by Lefty on 2005-07-06 10:11:52